The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"Materialists and some astronomers suggest that the solar planetary system and life as we know it was brought about by an accidental stellar collision. What is the Christian view of this theory?"

C. S. Lewis:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?

I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.

It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."

The above quotation is from God in the Dock, by C. S. Lewis. It is more of a compilation rather than a book. It's a great book though. I highly recommend it. More so than Left Behind. It's available at Amazon for 14.99

Yeah, the Left Behind series started out well, but are ending up too predictable, like you said, and also very "watered down". By that, I mean that the content and the main story has been thinned out too much since they want to make it to 12 books.

It was a good series but it's ending up too weak literature-wise. I bet the end times will have come and gone by the time the Left Behind series ends. : )

I really doubted why I believed what I believed. Was I just following my parents or my friends or my own heart/mind. I read Mere Christianity and then Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and found all the evidence I needed.

I can relate, James. I think all people raised in Christian homes do, or should, analyze things for themself at some point. Hit me a few years ago that I'd never seriously thought about it myself - I'd only followed my parents' lead.

Originally posted by micahgoulart
It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."[/i]

And religion is like expecting that the shape created when one intentionally spills milk should give you a correct account of why you spilled the milk and what you want the shape to do as a result of your kindness in creating it.

Nobody can ever understand everything. I agree everything comes from chaos. It's how the chaotic elements interact that regulate them and determine where they go. Our understanding is in the interactions of the chaotic elements, not in the elements themselves. All knowledge must be in relation to some other knowledge.

All I'm saying is that Lewis' argument can be used in many ways. If God created the jug, then who created God. And if humans are the spilled milk then why would they be in a better position to explain the jug than if the jug were an accident? Since Wayne is getting annoyed I won't post any more about this.

Don't read it if you don't like it! These are the GENERAL Forums...read them at your own risk.

I'm only frustrated because I think all this milk jug stuff has got to go. If you want to argue with what Mr. Lewis said...then fire away...but the analogies are getting off subject, hard to understand, and a bit odd.

I think his point is that if GOD created us, it makes perfect sense that we would have the ability to learn about our creator and creation built right into us...but if everything is a big accident, it's pretty unlikely that we'd be capable of discerning for ourselves how we came to be.

Originally posted by TWTCommish I think his point is that if GOD created us, it makes perfect sense that we would have the ability to learn about our creator and creation built right into us...but if everything is a big accident, it's pretty unlikely that we'd be capable of discerning for ourselves how we came to be.

Why? Is a computer more capable of understanding humans than it is of understanding numbers?

A computer is very different - it accepts commands...a human has been created to think for his or herself. Whether you believe in God or not, you have to admit that a human has reason and complex thought...hardly a computer!

Fact is that no analogy comes to mind (for me, at least) that can be used in the sense you're trying to use it in...simply because there is nothing that is like Man.